Like everyone else I had grown accustomed to the cameras banged against car windows and paddy wagon grills; the microphones thrust into the faces of people entering and leaving court, with the idiot questions "Do you admit guilt?" "Are you sorry?"; the demands for the drawing, quartering and sacking of any magistrate failing to give less than a life sentence for any crime more than stealing a chocolate bar from a supermarket; the television series featuring, and glamorising, crime gangs and events; the failure to use the word "alleged" about evidence: the television crews accompanying police raids on suspects; the exploitation, for their signs of grief, of victims and relatives of victims; the demands for "remorse"; the hounding of those released after serving their sentences; the constant assumption that charges, even just accusations, equate to guilt; the endless reality shows featuring law enforcement with accused people being shamed, blinking into cameras; the constant second guessing of judges by shock jocks.

But even I wasn't ready for the axe.

A man goes missing in circumstances that bring television cameras like a swarm of locusts. A news bulletin describes (not alleges) the accused cutting up a body and burning it. "Did you smell anything," the reporters ask neighbours who "thought it was a barbecue". And then the camera shows an axe in the backyard as the segment ends.

How did we get to this? A TV crew with access to an (alleged) crime scene, the camera lovingly focusing on material (an oil drum, a dark patch on the ground, an Axe) potentially relevant as evidence, filming the faces of suspects as they are driven away; a reporter interviewing potential court witnesses about the case. In other cases at random: A man in a motor vehicle accident is blood tested and the media reports (not alleges) he was "four times the legal limit". A reality show films a woman who "looks guilty because she is guilty".

In 5 years comes the 800 year anniversary of Magna Carta. Since then we have moved away from a society in which: the king could jail us at his pleasure, without charge, or trial, indefinitely; if tried in a court and found not guilty you could be retried indefinitely on the same charge until convicted, if released you could be simply thrown back into jail; anonymous accusers with unknown evidence could convict you; jails were full; you would be tried and judged by a member of the ruling class; a lynch mob could decide your guilt and punishment; so could trial by ordeal; sentences bore no necessary relation to the crime; death sentences were common; there were no rules of evidence; you were effectively guilty until proved innocent; there was no judiciary independent of the state or the ruling classes; punishment involved confinement in atrocious conditions; torture could be used to extract confessions; you had no right to legal representation; sentences were based on revenge by the victim, not on independent assessment by an impartial court; you were judged on your reputation not on the evidence in the particular case before the court.

Finally, set in motion by Magna Carta, and hard won after long battles over the succeeding centuries, all those features of the law were changed, and we became a civilised society in which all are equal before the law, and you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt. All of those changes towards a civilised legal system have been cast aside, or are in the process of being cast aside, as a result of media pressure in the last few decades.

Sometimes Australians get into trouble in countries where law is either absent or of a very different kind. They find themselves held captive, indefinitely; convicted on flimsy evidence; given extended sentences for minor crimes. Judges will pass harsh sentences at the bidding of politicians, juries will not be used, cases will be prejudged in the media, police will be brutal, jail conditions abysmal, hearsay evidence admitted, defence lawyers restricted, previous cases admitted in evidence. To travel to many countries in the world and find yourself in trouble with the "Law" is like travelling back in time to a system of justice we once had but thankfully shook off. The Australian media will complain endlessly about this and how primitive the legal systems of other countries are, while doing all they can to make ours just as primitive.

The media are determined to take us back to an older time, or to a lawless country, where lynch mobs rule, where the media decides on guilt, where evidence and analysis is published and publicly dissected as the case proceeds, where judges do the bidding of politicians or shock jocks.

Reporting details of cases is often said by the media to be "in the public interest", when what they are really doing is whipping up prurient public interest in the salacious and sordid details, then reporting even more because of the "public interest" they created. In fact "public interest" is best served by ensuring that the accused gets a fair trial.

"How can we make amends?" I can hear the media barons asking,"how can we get back to the spirit of the water meadow, all those years ago?"

Well tell your young reporters that everyone, repeat everyone, is innocent until proven guilty (and that having a lawyer isn't proof of guilt). Remember that police evidence, all police evidence, is only "alleged" until tested in court. Leave witnesses alone, leave the accused alone, get away from the courthouse steps while a trial is underway. Accept the verdict of the jury and judge. Don't seek comments from the "victims" after the court case has finished (no victim will ever be satisfied with the length of sentence). Stay away from the gaol gates when a prisoner has completed a sentence. Oh and dump the reality TV shows.

And just a note to the Sheriff of Nottingham, and other towns - don't take TV crews with you when you conduct raids, make arrests, you may be improving your image, but you are undermining justice.